Request Mechjeb like addon?

[blixel]

In KSP, can you get into the flight deck of a vessel and fly a whole mission from the pilot's seat?

When I looked at it 2 years ago (or has it been 3 already?), the only way to do anything was by looking at the vessel from outside, and by clicking different points on the screen and accessing different sub menus. It looks more like you're editing a word document than using a flight sim. Can you actually get inside the vessel, launch to orbit, fly to the moon (or whatever it's called - mun?), and back to "Earth" (Kearth/kerbleplanet/whatever)?

Just curious.

 

[C3PO]

In KSP, can you get into the flight deck of a vessel and fly a whole mission from the pilot's seat?

This is getting off-topic.

But yes. The instrumentation is very basic, but it is possible as long as you plan the burns in the map. I have to try that sometime. :thumbup:

 

[Urwumpe]

Actually there is something to what Cras is saying.

If you think about it, most tutorials start with Earth ascent. But in your typical KSC-to-ISS ride, Earth ascent is the most difficult part -- hence, learning curve.

No, actually that is the simplest part of it all - it is only hard if you expect to do this right on the first try - even flying to the intended inclination with a roll program is still one of the simpler stunts in Orbiter. Yes, an autopilot does it way more accurate and usually consumes much less fuel because he really manages to calculate the optimal trajectory and not estimates it by experience.

What about relative navigation? Real astronauts with lots of experience as test pilots really screwed this up during the early Gemini missions, because it is really something you can't experience on Earth and need to learn in simulator. KSP does also not have much support for it, but the simpler game world makes it a lot simpler than the real Earth orbit environment.

What about reentry? Is that simple? Only if you have nothing to fear except landing in the wilderness.

Is a gravity assist simple? Aerobraking? Lunar landing?

Yes, Orbiter throws you into the action and gives you little to learn step by step. That is what tutorials like lets go play in space compensate and what KSP also requires, since it also has no flight school.

But don't mistake honesty with "making things harder than they are". Things are hard. And don't get less hard by telling new players than they are actually simple and if they fail, it is their fault.

 

[Spacethingy]

...it could still be useful for AI-controlled vessels to populate the Orbiter universe.

Sounds familiar, I wonder how things are getting on with the Orbiter Battle Sim project? Those guys were wanting to make AI that could get around space themselves, right?

 

[Urwumpe]

The idea would be to have a set of robust low-level routines (e.g. "set spacecraft to orientation x in frame y at time t", "add dV x in direction y at time t", etc.) with a defined interface, and then string these elementary functions together to define more complex manoevers. The low-level stuff could for example be written as a C++ module, exporting its interface to Lua, so that the higher level AP tasks could be written as Lua scripts. We could have a library of scripts for all manner of flight tasks.

Not sure how practical this concept is - just an idea ...

It does not seem to be much different in that sense compared to the task planning for robots, which you can construct in a similar "block & flowchart" style - if you have the low-level dynamics of the robot already implemented by another special module for each robot.

Once you have taught the spacecraft to handle itself well, you can define general atomic tasks that can build on that. And then you can create more complex tasks from the atomic tasks, etc. For example by Lua - but maybe a simpler DSL would already be all that is really needed for controlling the order and parameters of the AP tasks.

The big problem for Orbiters context would be the interface between low-level "vehicle abstraction layer" and the higher level autopilot tasks. What would need to be implemented by the low-level part? What can be optional? What information does the AP task need?

Maybe somebody else can make a prototype for some better discussions, instead of just talking from a purely theoretical POV. I can't do it in the next two years.

 

[Enjo]

Orbiter is not KSP … because KSP is a commercial product. As such, it carries a burden of added responsibility towards its clients (not only a community anymore). If it is supposed to sell well, then it has to be as fancy and easy as possible.

We, at the freeware simulator Orbiter have the same privilege as public schools, that the KSP doesn’t have: we can force people to learn and still get away with it. I’d have to be paid a lot more than I get from my daily job to sacrifice the educational part of my addons for their easiness.

You say that our tools are hard to use for newcomers? Then publish YouTube videos which explain them. Or don’t do it if you don’t want to. After all we all give away our private time for free. But keep in mind that inside some navigational tools there may be hidden wishes from their authors to keep the users educated.

 

[Urwumpe]

We, at the freeware simulator Orbiter have the same privilege as public schools, that the KSP doesn’t have: we can force people to learn and still get away with it. I’d have to be paid a lot more than I get from my daily job to sacrifice the educational part of my addons for their easiness.

You say that our tools are hard to use for newcomers? Then publish YouTube videos which explain them. Or don’t do it if you don’t want to. After all we’re all giving away our private time for free. But keep in mind that inside some navigational tools there may be hidden wishes from their authors to the users to keep the latter educated.

Nice creed. :lol:

 

[Loru]

Let me clear my view on that.

As many of the developers, I too devote my free time to creating content for Orbiter. But working with people on daily basis I can understand, that sometimes "knowledge entry level" is too high for some people interested in topic to go further. Should we dismiss those people as not smart enough or not determined enough to join this "100 mile elite club"?

Is really making set of educational tools (may it be "MechJeb for Obiter" or dedicated low level educational spacecraft) so bad?

For that reason for example I wanted my rockets to be ready spawnable from scenario editor without need for fiddling with config files or writing ascent profile in notepad. To make it easier to use. Yes - I didn't went all way down to make it fully educational but that wasn't my goal then. Main issue I had with launch vehicle add-ons was 3 hours of experimenting with scenario file to set rocket properly before even launching.

Spaceflight in general is not an easy topic and IMO as education tool Orbiter can do better. With all due respect Enjo (LaunchMFD is really top piece of work) first look at LaunchMFD is kinda scary. I'm in no way demanding of you improving it in a way so 3 year old can perform direct ascent to ISS. That will be pointless because launch MFD wasn't designed for this task. It's not "entry level" autopilot.

Yes. Go Play in Space, youtube tutorials and other tutorial-like content here can provide masive help. But I think Orbiter as educational tool is mature enough to look at people who want to play in space but are scared.

I think creating either framework for "OrbiterMechJeb" or even dedicated educational vessel could be next step to bring more spaceflight enthusiasts without our usual RTFM. Will we have more "I wanna battleshipz with awsome lazers" guys ?? Probably yes but we will also have true valuable people who can contribute back when they pass their first steps.

I know that at current stage developing such framework is not easy task. Every more complicated vessel has it's own inner logic and some developers may be reluctant to update them to fit that kind of standard. But it can be done.

 

[Urwumpe]

Is really making set of educational tools (may it be "MechJeb for Obiter" or dedicated low level educational spacecraft) so bad?

We could already stamp down 99% of the educational content of Mechjeb by playback scenarios and lua scripting. No need to get complicated. Somebody just has to make such tools.

I see Mechjeb as a countereducation tool: The teletubby of spaceflight. Yes, you could declutter LaunchMFDs displays likely a lot, if you focus only on the simple scenarios - most of the harder data is only needed for more complex scenarios.

But a full autopilot that does everything for you? What do you learn from that? Did you learn speaking by only letting your parents speak for you?

 

[Pipcard]

I only used MechJeb as
-a launch autopilot when I already knew how to launch into low Kerbin orbit, and it has been done so many times that it got tedious
-an autopilot that lets me do precise vertical landings with a reusable rocket, from orbit to the space center (it's better than guesstimation/trial-and-error)

 

[blixel]

For that reason for example I wanted my rockets to be ready spawnable from scenario editor without need for fiddling with config files or writing ascent profile in notepad. To make it easier to use. Yes - I didn't went all way down to make it fully educational but that wasn't my goal then. Main issue I had with launch vehicle add-ons was 3 hours of experimenting with scenario file to set rocket properly before even launching.

Speaking as someone who is just an end-user, (meaning - I just fly the stuff other people make), I really appreciate add-ons like the HCLV which make it so much easier to put a lifter into the scenario and attach an XR2 to it. Not having to edit .scn files makes it a lot more approachable.

 

[N_Molson]

That's right. Orbiter is not KSP however investigating possibility of having mechjeb like add-on...

Heresy ! All the fun of Orbiter lies in calculating a Moon-Earth reentry corridor to the tenth of degree, with the Windows Calculator as an only tool !

Not having to edit .scn files makes it a lot more approachable.

Re-Heresy !!

 

[Cras]

is it really that hard to edit a scenario file?

 

[Pipcard]

is it really that hard to edit a scenario file?

It's easier than having to code a configuration interface.

 

[Loru]

is it really that hard to edit a scenario file?

Is it really that hard to hunt and gather whatever you want to eat or you prefer going to grocery store??

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Why not do both?

 

[Codz]

Why not do both?

Easier said than done in a large city.:lol:

 

[Face]

Just trying to understand it here... I still don't get it fully...

The OP posted this:

Is there a Mechjeb like addon or can some one please try to make one that dos every thing for you and works for every spacecraft?

I really don't like it if people automatically assume that their favorite tool/game is played by everyone, especially if it is a commercial one, even if questioned repeatedly. WTH is Mechjeb exactly, and what functionality is it you can't get from Orbiter already? The best source of information I've got so far is Meson's link. And that looks, IMHO, like a complicated mess of setting windows. No single button that reads "DO EVERYTHING FOR ME".

Don't get me wrong, I agree that some nice autopilot framework could enhance the Orbiter experience (I've tinkered with this myself when experimenting with PID controllers), but the topic here is Mechjeb for Orbiter. Yet it is still vague to me what is meant with that.

From the information I have now, Mechjeb is nothing more than a bunch of autopilots for special KSP-related operations. Is this correct?

Given that this was cloakedwand72's first post here, and that he did not participate in this discussion any further, I guess it was just a casual player's request along the lines of "please make this more like KSP". Personally, I wouldn't invest much time in a feature that might not be appreciated by Orbiter's target audience (as you can already guess from the polarized opinions here). And the later is certainly not the same as KSP's.

 

[Loru]

Ok - I'll outline my idea in details during the weekend since up tll now discussion was based only on assumtions about still non existing add-on/framework.

From my experience proper "pre-production" and goal set is important in any project so let's try doing that proper way

 

[Urwumpe]

From my experience proper "pre-production" and goal set is important in any project so let's try doing that proper way

It has to be 20% cooler! :thumbup: